Did Android Copy iOS - Really?
- Thread starter AndyCr15
- Start date
Apple basically made the iPhone, and patented everything in the process.
The only problem is the patent system allowing too many vague patents through it and the other companies for not bothering to patent the stuff to begin with.
It doesn't matter who invented it first, all that matters is who patented it first, nobody seems to have understood this except Apple, it's very odd.
The only problem is the patent system allowing too many vague patents through it and the other companies for not bothering to patent the stuff to begin with.
It doesn't matter who invented it first, all that matters is who patented it first, nobody seems to have understood this except Apple, it's very odd.
Thats because these "vague" patents are just that!
Most companies had the sense not to patent stupid stuff like "swipe to unlock".
In the same way no one ever patented TV's and that's why 99% look the same!
Its pathetic really!
I'm glad most companies (other than Apple) have the sense to allow an open market and allow choice.
Everything is a copy of something or a innovation of something previous.
Alteast some companies have the grace to understand that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,315
- Location
- Bristol
That has to be the worst article I've ever read.
Apple are a one trick pony.
If you look at their product line up in comparison to the likes of Nokia et al at the time the iPhone was released they looked pathetic.
Other manufacturers DID realise and understand the idea of patenting innovations, but not at the expense of killing innovation and competition in the marketplace. I can understand why Apple are doing what they are doing, but they are stifling what could be a fantastically vibrant and interesting market in the name of greed.
Microsoft were hit with monopoly charges eventually, and so will Apple if they carry on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,278
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
This is one thing i dont get, Apple are doing far more to monopolise than anything MS ever did! Perhaps they just give better back handers
Apple's greed will be their downfall, it wont be an overnight thing but eventually people will take note. People don't like to be seen as greedy or associated with greed, Apple will have to change their approach soon.
Company's will wise up soon enough and just patent anything and everything before it hits the market, then what are Apple going to copy ?
A one trick pony? I don't think you know what that means.
Clearly they did not understand the patent system.
Some (all good) businesses are ruthless. Apple are ruthless. They protect everything they can by using, not exploiting, a poor patent system. I'd be doing the same for my business if I could, as would you.
You're assuming that the average person cares. They don't.
'Their approach' isn't to patent everything and stop the other companies, that is just something they are doing on the side because it works.
This really isn't a hard concept to understand and I find it quite shocking that the (seemingly) intelligent people on here are having so much trouble grasping it.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,340
- Location
- Jarrow
The Guardian tech section is effectively free Apple advertising by fanbois.
If those patents are so vague why havent Google et al. filed for re-examination? Its not like they arent aware of this avenue, since theyve done that in the recent past with Lodsys and with Oracle too...
Either you paint the picture that Google (et al.) are so naive that they didnt think of patenting ideas, or even verifying if there was any infrigement which may require licensing; or on the flip side the Apple patents (however obscure or frivolous to you as a layman) actually may hold some water and why we have the current set of legal battles to determine their extent.
What seems most likely? I quite enjoy the utopian viewpoint a lot of you have, but it doesnt really matter much in the real world - stop watching Star Trek
...
Theres little point in maintaining patents if you arent going to enforce them...
ps3ud0
Either you paint the picture that Google (et al.) are so naive that they didnt think of patenting ideas, or even verifying if there was any infrigement which may require licensing; or on the flip side the Apple patents (however obscure or frivolous to you as a layman) actually may hold some water and why we have the current set of legal battles to determine their extent.
What seems most likely? I quite enjoy the utopian viewpoint a lot of you have, but it doesnt really matter much in the real world - stop watching Star Trek
...Theres little point in maintaining patents if you arent going to enforce them...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
I can't believe some of the posts in this thread, honestly.
Apple applied for a patent in 2005, no one cared.
Apple updated it in 2009, no one cared.
Patent finally got granted in 2010, no one cared.
Someone writes an article "Omg, Apple tried to patent unlocking phones! BREAKING NEWS11!!!" in 2011, a year after the patent got granted, and the Internet's up in arms over it.
Apple applied for a patent in 2005, no one cared.
Apple updated it in 2009, no one cared.
Patent finally got granted in 2010, no one cared.
Someone writes an article "Omg, Apple tried to patent unlocking phones! BREAKING NEWS11!!!" in 2011, a year after the patent got granted, and the Internet's up in arms over it.
The issue is you can't enforce a patent or patent something that's already commonly in use.
Also they purposely keep the patents vague so they can apply it to varied infringements as and when the lawyers wish to extract money from others.
A classic example of this was the Rambus patent for DDR - it fell on its ass when they tried to pursue damages.
Otherwise i could just patent the speaking into a electronic box device that can send the speech to another box, and sue everyone.
Also they purposely keep the patents vague so they can apply it to varied infringements as and when the lawyers wish to extract money from others.
A classic example of this was the Rambus patent for DDR - it fell on its ass when they tried to pursue damages.
Otherwise i could just patent the speaking into a electronic box device that can send the speech to another box, and sue everyone.
This is one thing i dont get, Apple are doing far more to monopolise than anything MS ever did! Perhaps they just give better back handers
Apple's greed will be their downfall, it wont be an overnight thing but eventually people will take note. People don't like to be seen as greedy or associated with greed, Apple will have to change their approach soon.
Company's will wise up soon enough and just patent anything and everything before it hits the market, then what are Apple going to copy ?
Apple do not cater for the entire market though and thus their market share is very low, compared to MS.
Living in a dream world, did it harm MS share when they were seen as evil. Only Some geeks care about such things. The public couldn't care less.
All companies do! do that anyway. You even have companies who sole purpose is to make patents and buy patents and license them out.
And judges have already said Apple can't use it to seek retrospective damages.
However i bet Apple are a bit miffed that it took 5 years for the men around the little desk at the patent office to decide to grant or deny it.
I don't know law, but from what I've understood from others, this isn't the case. That's why people talk about prior art. If it's been in use already, you shouldn't be able to patent it.
They are apparently changing patent law to make it the first to file, rather than the first to invent/use, which to me seems rather odd. Surely the point was if you had a great idea on a new way of doing something, a patent should protect you. This new way, it wont if you don't fill out the paperwork?!!?
This is what Android looked like before the iPhone was announced...
It can't be honestly argued that Android hasn't copied iOS.
What can be debated is whether that copying is wrong. I don't think that there's anything wrong with realising that capacitive touchscreen phones are popular and making one yourself.
Couldnt it be easily argued that it copied Symbian?
much like IOS did (in some form of course).
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
Android and iOS are just differently developed custom Unix based os's, so they're both copying!